The court reaffirmed that when prima facie evidence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is established, bail is barred under Section 18.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short hereafter), challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026 dated 12.02.2026 on the files of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent State of Kerala. Though notice was served upon the 2^nd respondent/the defacto complainant, she did not turn up. Perused the prosecution records. 3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 115(2), 296(b), 351, 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (` BNS ’ for short hereafter) and under Section 3(1)(r)

(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the appellant/accused. The prosecution case is that at about 11 hours on 12.01.2026, when the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community and neighbour of the appellant, made exchange of words with the appellant, due to their persisting animosity, the appellant, who doesn’t belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, abused and humiliated the defacto complainant in public view. The further allegation is that the accused thereafter grabbed a cricket bat and assaulted her, resulting in head injuries.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, insofar as the ingredients to find commission of offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are concerned, none of the ingredients could be seen from the FIS given by the defacto complainant, which led to the registration of the FIR, though thereafter when the additional statement of the defacto complainant was recorded, he disclosed the ingredients for the said offences. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the additional statement given by the defacto complainant with a view to implicate the appellant in this crime is bereft of truth and, in fact, there is a continuing animosity between the parties. Therefore, he pressed for anticipatory bail to the appellant and according to him, in this case, prima facie, the allegations are not made out. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the appellant on the submission that the prosecution materials have to be read in toto. According to him, when the FIS as well as the additional statement of the defacto complainant are gone through, the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are, prima facie, made out. That apart, there is an allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 118 (1) of BNS equivalent to Section 324 of IPC. So, the offence under Section 3(ii)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act also is made out. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would apply and in such view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for.

6. On a perusal of the FIS, by adverting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the FIS doesn’t show anything to attract offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act. However, a perusal of the additional statement recorded as that of the defacto complainant, would reveal that those ingredients are, prima facie, made out.

7. It is well settled law that when the prosecution records would show, prima facie, commission of offence/s punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act, grant of bail is specifically barred under Section 18 the SC/ST (POA) Act. In the instant case, if at all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are accepted to hold that, in the FIS, none of the ingredients for the of